DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Katz eye replacement focussing screen for 350D

BTW, that B&W was shot available light at ISO 400 using the 28-90 R Zoom.

Here's one in color where the light was extremely harsh on a very very bright day ... the bride was sitting in the shade near a window. ISO 400, 28-90 R Zoom.

393347.jpg
 
A final one, available light at ISO 800, 50/1.4R lens... better exposure than the last two ... positively 3D wouldn't you say?

No comparison to the 20D or the ND I think ... but I can't say anything definitively until I learn how to get everything out of this camera possible... and use it longer to find it's short-comings ... which there are sure to be some.

393350.jpg
 
I really do hope you get somewhat better images with the DMR than you get with the 20D - I mean, it's only 5+ times more expensive
biggrin.gif
. And the extra 2MP may not be a huge advantage but it can't hurt either ...

Where the 20D may get a nod is in the 800+ ISO range. Maybe?
 
Dirk, the 20D is really a good camera for the money. Build quality is no way like the Leica, ND, EOS 1D or 1Ds, but the image quality is similar to the 1D mark II.

S&le pics taken with 20D and the cheap 17-85IS lens couple months ago...

I know, no comparison to the Lecia. :)

393353.jpg
 
oh guys, you give me a hard time. The equipment question I think is my smallest problem.

I think I have to take first a class in photography from Marc, Irakly et alii
happy.gif


The problem is, once I have a DSLR with Zeiss lenses on it, I have to show images and I am afraid, that will be embarrassing at the beginning compared to the shots you alle showed already.

Until now, I had always the excuse of lacking time to use my Nikon Coolscan 4000 and learn photoshop
happy.gif
 
Dirk, organize a seminar in Germany with Irakly (he does them all over the world ... he's in Russia as we speak, and did one in San Francisco a few weeks ago). If my schedule permits, I'll come with him, and we'll do it together !!!! Irakly's talent is without question, and his enthusiastic teaching style is positively infectious. We'll even provide you with some side lessons in PS ; -)

I must agree that the 20D is a very good DSLR for the money, but it has it's known shortcomings. My only point is that unless you are cranking out a lot of quick turn-around images, it's hard to beat a N-1 equipped with Zeiss lenses... and scanning with your Nikon 4000 ... all of which you already own.

Putting Zeiss glass on the 20D or any Canon DSLR is an improvement for sure (as DJ can also probably confirm). But it's a pain in the rear doing stop-down metering and not easy to manually focus the 300D or 20D due to their smaller viewfinder window ... even with the Katzeye screen. It's a pain worth enduring to get the better images the Contax C/Y lenses provide. However, the price of the C/Y glass has soared to new highs because so many Canon users are snapping up everything in sight. $4,000 for a 21/2.8? Come on now! For $4,000. you can buy a Hasselblad SWC and blow away anything taken with a C/Y 21/2.8 ; -)

Anyway, I for one am not ready to abandon the pictorial qualities of film shot with these fabulous lenses for the pixel perfection of digital. I also resent sitting here processing hundreds and hundreds of digital wedding images ... and have returned to shooting more film with 35mm and 6X6 cameras sporting Zeiss optics. I get my film back in a day which is faster than I can process that many digital images even with PSCS2's new RAW developer.

Here's a grab shot Irakly took of me being a bad boy by smoking. He did it with my N-1 and 50/1.4. I still like the pictorial feel of film, so I keep on shooting it.

Not knocking digital, but it just doesn't have that basic emotional pictorial feel to me.


393357.jpg
 
Oh, by the way, I am selling my 20D & 17-85 EFS Image Stabilized lens(with dusty Katzeye screen), and a Canon 1DMKII.

I disagree that the 20D is similar to the 1DMKII. The 20D is a 1.6X lens factor sensor, and the 1DMKII is a 1.3X. Meg count isn't the end all, and a bigger sensor makes a significant difference in image quality.

For ex&le, the Canon 1DsMKII is 16 meg and so is the Kodak digital back for the Contax 645. There is no comparison between the two, the 645 with the bigger sensor is clearly superior. That's why the Contax ND, while only 6 meg, still can produce excellent images ... because it is a full 35mm frame sensor. Don't confuse image processing faults of the ND with it's ability to make great photos ... including the ND in the list of cameras supported by PSCS RAW developer solved many of those issues. Leica totally avoided that problem by adopting the Adobe DNG RAW file format. You just pop the SD card into the reader and open the DNG files in the PS RAW converter.
 
Hi Marc,

thanks for your input. At the current state of sensor developments, which image quality do you prefer:

- Canon 20D with Zeiss MM lenses or
- Contax ND with N lenses
 
I've already gone on record as liking the ND images more than the Canon. But I seem to be able to get more out of it than others can. Irakly is even better then I am at getting great quality from the ND.

But I don't want to mislead you. The Canon 20D is very good, and with Zeiss lenses even better. It has a much higher ISO ability than the ND, and shooting at 800 is easy to do, without much consequence. It also can be used with a few pretty good Canon lenses for fast AF work (24/1.4 is my favorite on that camera and the 100 macro ain't all that bad).

For general shooting and all around ease of use it's the 20D hands down. The batteries last a looooong time, and it is fairly painless to process the images. The ND is an acquired taste, and those who use it are use to it idiosyncratic ways.

Either way, to get Zeiss quality with digital, you simply have to put up with less convenience and speed.
 
Back
Top